On 01 Mar 2015, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I can like 0 and 2 as the primordial Goddesse, enclosing the old
fashioned male God who thought he was the source of all things, but he
was just a child playing in the magical garden sustained by the
goddess of annihilation (0) and the goddess of creation the number 2.
But coming back on being serious, the things the platonist name "the
one" is closer to the concept of truth, with the fact that such truth
is encompassing the machine-believer, and this makes it undefinable
from the first person perspective. Eventually, it defines the notion
of first person, which lives at the intersection of belief and God
([]p & p), according to the definition of Theaetetus).
God is approximated here as the knower of the larger set of true
sentences about you (or about the universal person) and your relation
with the rest of what can exist relatively to you (or relatively to
the universal person. The universal person is the one whose logic of
truth, belief, knowledge, observable and sensible are described by the
eight variant of the Gödel-Löbian provability predicate. It is an
ideal simple rational believer, since Gödel we know it is infinitely
non trivial, but thanks to Solovay, the propositional logical part are
decidable.
The intersection of all religion, if you read Aldous Huxley, is in
that set, if you agree with the plotinus translation in arithmetic.
The universal dovetailer is the sigma_1 truth, to which
computationalism gives a special role. But God would be, in that
approximation the union of all sigma_i and pi_i truth. probably the
analytical truth to, but that is for the internal inside understanding.
For God I use usually "truth", but I use "God" to examplify
relationship between "truth about a machine", "truth as conceived by a
machine", "truth as undistinguishbale from the Perenial God, from the
machine's pov. You need two words to equate God and Truth. I am only
following the greek (neo)platonist tradition, where God is use for
concepts and possible first principle.
I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator,
There are none. But there are no evidence for a creation either,
beyond an extrapolation which ease our lives.
But there are evidence of persistent relation between numbers, and
between some "measurable numbers". There are evidences for persons and
stories.
There are evidence for some simple but deep truth, related to good and
bad, life and afterlife, etc.
Using "theology" is an act of modesty. A way to recall you need faith
in some religion; here you need at least some faith in a possible type
of technological reincarnation. (That is entails infinitely
arithmetical reincarnation is a consequence).
but even if there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question
at the top of the thread - "Why is there something rather than
nothing?" It just changes it to "Why is there a creator?"
And computationalism changes that question into why there are numbers
and why do they obey to addition and mutiplication. Since the failure
of logicism, we know that we cannot derive them from logic alone. That
is why I ask you to be willing enough to assume that
x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), and an half dozen other "obvious"
axioms. (or Kxy = x, and Sxyz = (xz)(yz) which are even simpler).
Then assuming computationalism, that MUST be enough to explain the
sharable persistant illusions, and in only one way: by the logic of
the observable (defined by the notion of probability one, or the
relative measure on infinitely many computations.
And what I find wonderful, is that from assuming x + 0 = 0, etc. It
can be explained why such beliefs (or Turing equivalent) cannot be
avoided. It explains why we just cannot explain our faith in the
numbers addition and multiplication, like it explains alson but
differently why consciousness and truth are not definable, etc.
The numbers, or the combinators, are the minimal unsolvable mystery.
It assumes some God already implicitly, like Kronecker guessed perhaps.
Bruno
On 2 March 2015 at 08:16, Samiya Illias <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote:
Why don't you just call it One with a capital O
Because I use "One" for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for
the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative
theologians.
God / Allah (The Deity) are terms used for a being worthy of
worship (loving obedience).
That might be true for those who meet God, and strictly speaking
it go without saying. But it might lead to catastrophes when said
by anyone, because you can't really name God so as to be clear
about what to obey to. Cerfeul, as the trick is ,for some tyrant,
to make believe he is the intermediate. That happens very often.
Does the One/God of Comp mean as such?
I suspect so, but with that important proviso, above.
From what I've gathered from your explanations, it simply points
to an origin, not the Creator of the origin(s). Is that correct?
I would say that it points on the permanent immutable perfection,
say, at the origin and end of all origins and ends. It is out of
time and space, and explains the reason of the perception of
origin, time, space, etc
I think "God" is more a semantic reason than an "origin". It is
not omnipotent. Its perfection makes it unable to cope with many
things, including matter. There is a trade-of between knowledge
and ability to change/move. God can oscillate between knowing all
things, but then unable to change anything, or forgetting and then
being able to change and move.
Well, though you can refer to it with whatever word seems
appropriate to you, however I would suggest that you do not use of
the term Allah, as the concept of the term is a perfect, perfectly-
able, perfectly and constantly all-aware, all-seeing, all-hearing,
perfectly-commanding and perfectly-governing being, in control of
everything
So why worry?
If I decide to call it Allah, why would you doubt that this is
Allah will?
and not sharing its sovereignty or command with anyone.
I agree 100%. That's the way of the Gods, and the God, or Goddess.
But that is exactly what many humans do not seem to grasp, when
they believe in prophets and fairy tales. They invent, I'm afraid,
intermediate between God and humans, for political purpose. I am
not sure at all, but it does look like blasphemy.
Allah alone is worthy of worship,
Well, if by Allah you mean God, I certainly agree, but I don't
think any human has a monopoly of a name, as "The God" (which I
think is Allah in arab) has no name.
Suggesting me not to use Allah seems a little weird, then.
The descriptions that you have given of your discovery is something
that set in motion the process by initiating 0 and 1 and then is no
longer involved in the process of creation, forgets, unable to act,
and so on. That is not the concept of Allah in Islam, nor of God in
most religions. That is why I suggested that perhaps what you've
discovered is not God but rather an origin, a primary creation of
sorts, may be. Feel free to call it whatever you like, I was just
sharing my thoughts on the matter.
Samiya
and all else is creation,
Or emanation. OK. We can look at the detail later, as you know I
think the neoplatonist muslims, jews and christians are less wrong
than the Aristotelians. They are less numerous too.
and even the mightiest / loftiest of creation submits humbly to
Allah. Use of the word Allah for a concept less-powerful may not
be a good idea.
Are you saying that God is less-powerful than Allah?
Then, given what I mean by "God", you should encourage me to use
Allah. Logically.
And then, IF I use Allah, what makes you think it could be possible
that it is not Allah's wish, given that Allah controls everything?
I am not so sure I understand you fully, Samiya. I certainly
understand that you might not appreciate the doubt about taking
literally the talk of the prophets (despite we both agree they are
human).
I understand also the hardness to accept that in theology we might
have chosen the wrong path, since the sixth century in Occident and
the eleventh century in the Middle-East.
I thought you might be pleased with such terming, but I can also
understand the worry. No problem, I will use, according to the
context the more neutral "One", or "The Truth", or "The ultimate
reality", or simply "God" (the common term used in comparative
theology) and not call It/He/She Allah, nor Brahma, nor Tao, nor ....
You are right that we cannot comprehend it, but sometimes you do
behave like you do comprehend it, somehow, it seems to me.
All Names miss the One.
I think. Currently.
Bruno
Samiya
But it is a very complex subject, and I am extrapolating probably
too much. You might read the book by Brian Hines "Return to the
One" (subtitled "Plotinus' guide To God-Realization"). It is not a
scholar, but it fits rather well with the machine's talk, but to
verify this we need to climb that Mountain, and if I remember well
we are still learning lacing the shoes ....
About this, can you tell me if you have a idea of what a set is?
And what a subset is? How many subsets has the set {0, 1}?
I hope you indulge my math teaching vocation ... For the greeks,
mathematics is the preliminary study of theology.
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 26 Feb 2015, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality,
because God, by definition, is the reality that we search.
Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A
person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first
principle, etc.
The Greeks had many concepts of the basis of reality which
were not assumed to be gods, i.e. persons. Anaximander called
it "aperion". From Wikipedia:
"Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction,
adopting apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is
completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the
previous existing mythical way of thought to the new rational
way of thought which is the main characteristic of the
archaic period (8th-6th century BC)."
So I reiterate my objection that using "God" is not only
obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's
what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality.
Yes, it is a key moment in the greek theology, where at the
beginning, God was considered as finite, and the infinite was
confused with the indefinite, and almost an insult. Later they
make the infinite (apeiron) into a possible attribute of the
ONE, and reserve the indefinite ofr the notion of bad, or
matter.
If you don't like the term "God" I will use "Allah". The main
point about God is that it has no name, so *any* name is
wrong. I did not use God, except in a reply which has lead us
to that infinite useless vocabulary discussion. God is just
the most common quasi-name (pointer).
I made clear what I meant, and the important point is the
coming back to the scientific attitude in theology, which is
typically concerned with soul, afterlife, (re)incarnation,
origin of universe, transcendence, truth, non-nameable, etc.
It is the ONE of Parmenides and Plotinus, and it is not
distinguishable from arithmetical truth, in case we are machine.
BTW, sometimes ago, you suggested here to promote my work to
Templeton. How is that going?
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to [email protected]
.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to [email protected]
.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to everything-list
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-
list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
